Where is Trump’s cabinet?

“Stopping Trump” is the main goal of anyone who has a modicum of decency —at least according to the left these days. But this facile approach inevitably leads to obstructing even ostensible points of agreement like infrastructure spending — but even that seems to be another bargaining chip for leftist ideologues.

We’re a little over a month into the Trump administration and yet still — his cabinet is not fully confirmed. Democrats won’t even bother to show up to committee hearings and acccording to the president:

One would assume this would be attributable to legitimate concerns about the integrity of Trump’s nominees. But, it’s looking like yet another instance of reflexive leftist partisanship, another attempt at rejecting the legitimacy of November’s outcome. The objective of this obstructionism has become increasingly transparent: Trump’s failure as a president. Democrats have begun to lay down the groundwork for impeachment — driven by hysteria about Russian collusion for which the evidence is woefully inconclusive. It’s clearly illustrated by the magnification of even the most tenuous of links to Russia, painting the image of a corrupt administration beholden to a foreign power. The Salem-esque witch hunts targeting those within Trump’s orbit such as Manafort, Kushner, Tillerson, Flynn, Sessions, and more are all designed to cast doubt on Trump’s appointments by tapping into a new form of latent McCarthyism. Take a look at this article from the Washington Post

Leftist media networks have been relentless in their campaign to push this Russia collusion narrative. Their goal is to evoke a sense of uneasiness by unnecessarily dipping each headline in a nefarious sheen. I mean… how else are you supposed to interpret loaded words like WEB. Their implication, of course, is that Trump, under Putin’s guidance, is a spider spindling a trap for the American people. Later in this article, the writer concedes “there is nothing noteworthy about a government official meeting with an ambassador from a foreign country.” All these “insane, bombshell” stories published by the likes of the New York Times and the Washington Post have consistently fallen flat when readers actually read the contents and examine the veracity of such articles.

Ironically, leftists have backed themselves into a corner on Russia, given that only the hysterical fringes of their party are animated by this conspiracy theory — while ordinary Americans are much more interested in economic prosperity and national security. And unfortunately for Democrats, tweeting in way you don’t like is not an impeachable offense.

Another point of concern for pearl-clutching Democrats is the unacceptable “white maleness” of Trump’s cabinet, as if the competency of a cabinet can only be measured by its racial and gendered composition. Take for instance these New York Times and Politico headlines:

Perhaps the left would be taken more seriously if they leveled reasonable concerns about the president’s picks, rather than ham-fisting a racial agenda into policy matters. Their implication, of course, is that Trump is a racist if he doesn’t stock his cabinet secretaries with racial tokens, in the same vein as Hillary “some black guy” Clinton.

It becomes clear that leftists only care about ‘tokenism’ when Republicans supposedly do it, further demonstrating that the opposition to his cabinet selections amount to not much more than partisan cherry picking.

This hysteric obstructionism is further highlighted by their smear campaign against Trump’s pick for Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. Many top, top people say Jeff is big league on civil rights. No one does civil rights better than him…. In any case, this character assassination is based on some lighthearted jokes he made during a case where he was prosecuting actual racists. Are a couple pieces of facetious humor truly disqualifying offenses that prove his inability to lead impartially to race? This smear campaign could be compelling if his detractors could reference a point of actual racial injustice over the course of his 40 years of distinguished public service. And Sessions’ role in desegregating black schools is proof positive that he’s accomplished more for civil rights than even the most vocal within the cornucopia of cafe cucks.

It’s worth noting the most prevalent argument points to the adversarial relationship many of his appointees have with their agencies, like Rick Perry, Betsy DeVoss, and Scott Pruitt. One thing we must do is disassociate the intended effects these departments set out to accomplish from their actual effects. A report in January conducted by the Department of Education found the Department of Education had absolutely no impact on student achievement, despite squandering billions on failed education initiatives

Similarly, President Obama’s top EPA official in 2016 claimed that a total reduction in U.S. emissions by 2025 foreseen under the Clean Power Plan, an anti-climate change policy, would be offset by just three weeks of emissions in China. With that in mind, would it have made sense to cripple our nation’s industries to the false song of environmentalism?

See… Examining the efficacy and implications of departments and their policies is continuously suppressed by indignant moral posturing as to the ‘self-evident’ necessity of their noble aims. If you criticize, say, the Department of Education and public schools, you must hate teachers. Or something. Appointees who have been critical of the agencies they are slated to head are best equipped to identify points of inefficiency and downscale the bureaucratic apparatus which chronically cripples economic activity. Deconstructing the administrative state of the executive branch by appointing leaders who don’t stand to benefit from the continued existence of these self-validating departments will end the needless diversion of taxpayer funds that could be used to put a nick in our colossal deficits or generate jobs in the private sector. Contrary to Bernenomics, their tremendous wealth, if anything, should inspire confidence that they are acting out of a genuine call to duty rather than some sort of cynical self-service. After all, the benefits of cronyism would naturally pale in comparison to the extraordinarily lucrative fields they have left in order to pursue public service; and the benefits package of, say, Goldman Sachs is probably several orders of magnitude more generous than those of the (money-hemorrhaging) Treasury Department.

Corey Booker stated just a few month ago:

“But I’m a big believer if the situations were reversed and there was a Republican President in the last year on the federal level, I would be calling, just like some Republican Senators have, I just listened to Senator Collins from Maine saying we should be giving this person a hearing, an up-or-down vote to not do so is violative of the United States Constitution.

His statement doesn’t leave much room for confusion. In blockading the administration of effective governance, are democrats violating the constitution as Booker claims? Booker and Democrats have a unique opportunity to put on display their bipartisan bona fides. But will they?

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.